On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Robert G. Brown wrote:
[snip]
> independence times and so forth. I'd be happy to look over your
> problem/solution if you like to see if I think that it would make any
> difference to use an e.g. typewriter or checkerboard algorithm instead
> of random site selection. The general rule is that if you are
[snip]
>> As a general rule, by the way, random site selection is the SLOWEST
> method to converge, slower even than a shuffled (random without
> replacement) selection strategy. This is because the Poissonian process
> leaves a lot of sites unvisited in any given Monte Carlo sweep. In
> fact, for a large lattice, there are often sites that aren't visited for
> MANY sweeps. These sites significantly delay the thermalization
> process.
[snip]
Dr. Brown,
Could you discuss the typewrite, checkerboard and
random site selection algorithms for MC a bit more?
I think to the extent they would effect the time to completion
because of cache locality that more information on the algorithm
is on topic for the list. I am certainly interested :>
thanks,
chris
charwel at chthry.chem.lsu.edu